DLF LTD. Vs. VINOD KAPUR
LAWS(NCD)-2020-1-75
NCDRC
Decided on January 20,2020

DLF LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
VINOD KAPUR Respondents




JUDGEMENT

M.SHREESHA,J. - (1.) Aggrieved by the orders dated 11.08.2017 in CC No. 584, 585 and 586 of 2015 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (for short the "State Commission"?), DLF Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Developer"?) has preferred these First Appeals under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short "the Act"?).
(2.) As the facts and issues are similar in all the First Appeals and involves the same Opposite Party/Developer, they are being disposed of by this common order. However, for the sake of convenience First Appeal No. 1977 of 2017 is being taken up as a lead case.
(3.) By the impugned order the State Commission has condoned the delay in filing the complaint and disposed of the application under section 24A(2) of the Act filed by the Complainant seeking condonation of delay in filing the Complaint under section 17 of the Act. The State Commission while exercising its descrition to condone the delay has observed as follows:- "17. There is nothing on record to show any malafides on the part of complainants. The complainants had pursued their complaint bondafide before MRTP Commission/COMPAT for about past 17 years with the belief that MRTP Commission/COMPAT was competent to grant relief of possession. Perusal of complaint before MRTP Commission shows that there was a specific prayer made by complainants for grant of relief of possession of Unit in question. The MRTP Commission/COMPAT has already given permission to the complainants to approach Consumer Forum for appropriate relief. The said permission has been given in the presence of OP. No objection was raised by the OP before the COMPAT. The complainants have been bonafide pursuing their remedy before MRTP Commission/COMPAT and finding that COMPAT can't give the relief of possession, the complaint was withdrawn. 18. Relevant provision of Section 14 of the Limitation Act read as under: "S.14. Exclusion of time of proceeding bona fide in Court without jurisdiction (1) In computing the period of limitation for any suit the time during which the plaintiff has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the defendant shall be excluded, where the proceeding relates to the same matter in issue and is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it. (2) In computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant has been prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding, whether in a Court of first instance or of appeal or revision, against the same party for the same relief shall be excluded, where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith in a Court which, from defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, is unable to entertain it."? (3) xxx xxx xxx xxx."? 19. It is well settled that the real purpose of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, is to extend the period of limitation prescribed by adding the period during which the suit or other proceeding has been prosecuted with due diligence and in good faith in a Court which either on account of defect of jurisdiction or other cause of a like nature, was unable to entertain it. 20. The complainants have been pursuing their remedy before MRTP Commission/COMPAT with due diligence and in good faith as such they are entitled for the benefit under section 14 of the Limitation Act. The judgment of N. Manohar Reddy (supra) relied upon by OP is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 21. Further National Commission has also granted leave to complainants to file the complaint before appropriate Forum. In similar facts and circumstances, National Commission in Pushpa Goel v. Ghaziabad Authority, II (2015) CPJ 46 (NC) has held that the complaint is not barred by limitation. 22. It is also admitted position that the possession is not delivered to the complainants so far and in the present complaint, one of the prayers is for possession of flat. In complaint before MRTP Commission also, one of the prayers was for the relief of possession of unit. According to Ld. Counsel for the complainant, the cause of action is continuing one and Ld. Counsel has relied upon judgement of Lata Construction and ors v. Dr. Rameshchandra Ramniklal Shah and Anr, X (1999) SLT 77. On the other hand, OP has relied upon judgement of Jay Grih Nirman Pvt. Ltd. v. Arunoday Apartment Owners' Association, 1(2014) CPJ 307 (NC) and has contended that it was clearly intimated to the complainant that unless all amounts due are paid as per Agreement, the possession cannot be taken. It is contended that demand for extra charges has already been intimated in June 1997 as such it cannot be said that present is a case of continuing cause of action. We have considered the submissions of the parties. It is yet to be decided as to whether demand for extra charges by OP is valid or not. In any event, the complaint was filed before the MRTP Commission within the period of limitation. In these circumstances, the aforesaid contention is not examined at length. ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.